Damian v. 5060 Auto Service, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-09226
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Damian v. 5060 Auto Service, Judge Torres required court or Labor Department approval before the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement could be dismissed with prejudice.
The parties to Valentin Damian’s Fair Labor Standards Act case—Damian, 5060 Auto Service, Inc., and Leonid Bruk—were required to obtain court or Department of Labor approval before seeking dismissal with prejudice based on their settlement.
What happened
Damian v. 5060 Auto Service, Inc. is a wage case in which the parties told Judge Analisa Torres that they had reached a settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
Judge Torres said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based on that settlement unless the court or the U.S. Department of Labor approved the agreement. The parties had to file a joint request and the settlement agreement, or documentation of Department of Labor approval, by March 2, 2020.
Judge Torres also required information about whether the settlement was fair, the parties’ potential recovery and litigation risks, any dispute about hours or compensation, and requested attorney fees. She said fee requests needed billing records, and she stated that pending motions were moot and scheduled conferences were canceled.
The detailed version
- Damian v. 5060 Auto Service, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09226
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 29, 2020
Background
Valentin Damian brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against 5060 Auto Service, Inc., doing business as 5060 Auto Service, Inc., and Leonid Bruk. The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or the settlement’s specific terms.
Court’s directions
The court ordered that the action not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved either by the court or by the U.S. Department of Labor. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to file either a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the agreement or documentation showing Department of Labor approval. Any letter motion and the settlement agreement had to be filed on the public docket by March 2, 2020.
The court required the letter motion to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It identified these minimum topics:
- Damian’s possible range of recovery; - how the settlement would allow the parties to avoid anticipated burdens and expenses in proving their claims and defenses; - the seriousness of the litigation risks; - whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The letter also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much of the settlement Damian’s attorney would seek as fees.
Attorney fees and settlement terms
Any request for attorney fees had to include supporting documentation. The court required contemporaneous billing records identifying, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court also stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. Absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve an agreement containing broad nondisclosure provisions or releases of claims unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres did not approve the settlement or dismiss the action in this order. She stated the conditions that had to be met before dismissal with prejudice could occur. The court also ruled that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.